So I was very skeptical about opus when it sounded like a new OGG Vorbis hype where the codec is both free and crappy quality. I didn't think without SBR it would be able to compete with Nero HE-AAC. So I compared at different bitrates and opus always sounded worse. I decided to ABX at different bitrates, opus failed on 32 and 48 but not 64 where the treble was audibly brighter than Nero.

Ok you got me convinced that opus sounds better at 64 kb/s, why does it suck so bad at other bitrates? Also, why didn't you guys include WMA in your listening test along with opus? WMA has proven to be slightly superior quality to HE-AAC at 64 kb/s so maybe opus still has a competitor.

Also, fix your biased testing methodology and keep the bitrates as close as possible to the original! Jesus. My hypothetical codec produces output bitrates of 192 kb/s when my quality setting intends it to be half as less, I demand it to be nominated as capable of transparency at 16 kb/s. Your unscientific results makes me keep clear of your website these days.

@serenI don't use 32 kb/s for music, but I'm hoping it will happen someday. The original format of the song I uploaded is .MOD and it's only 15KB which gives it a bitrate of 1.2 kb/s and even lower when compressed.

@saratogaI've explained myself numerous times, I won't do it a third. Also, choosing MP3 for quality isn't a wise choice given its inefficient block sizes and other numerous design flaws make it incapable of transparency at any bitrate.

@db1989You're just being ignored, for now anyway. I intended to respond but posts concerning the original topic came back up so I went with the flow.

@greynolI never said anything about archival quality.

@C.R.HelmrichI increased Opus' delay to the maximum 60ms to produce that sample. Is this close to AAC's? I'm aware it was intended for VoiP but your latest listening test got my attention when I heard AAC has finally been made obsolete, so I was puzzled why this was only true for one bitrate? No I haven't ABX'd higher bitrates but since I do not intend to switch to Opus even if it is only slightly higher quality, I'm not wasting the time. USAC is due which will crush both AAC and Opus.

I don't think two counts as "numerous", particularly when one of them is you accusing me of trolling. Basically, you've just said that you rated Opus higher even though you don't think you should have. Is that a fair summary?

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26)

Also, choosing MP3 for quality isn't a wise choice given its inefficient block sizes and other numerous design flaws make it incapable of transparency at any bitrate.

No, MP3 is quite transparent at high bitrates. You need to do some listening tests, I suspect you'll be surprised. Or alternatively, take a look at some of the historical listening tests on this site.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26)

I increased Opus' delay to the maximum 60ms to produce that sample.

Hmm, did you use any other non-standard settings? Where is that FLAC file you mentioned, I'm curious to try it myself.

QUOTE (Warning @ Jan 26 2013, 20:26)

I'm aware it was intended for VoiP but your latest listening test got my attention when I heard AAC has finally been made obsolete, so I was puzzled why this was only true for one bitrate?

Did you see my explanation above? You shouldn't assume that one codec will be better at all bitrates. AAC-He is a great example of a codec that does really good at low bitrates and not good at higher bitrates.

I don't think two counts as "numerous", particularly when one of them is you accusing me of trolling. Basically, you've just said that you rated Opus higher even though you don't think you should have. Is that a fair summary?

No, opus had better stereo dynamics at the expense of sample quality. AAC had better sample quality with the expense of simplified stereo. They both sounded like shit in the end and which one's worse is a matter of opinion. Do you prefer better brightness or better stereo?

QUOTE

No, MP3 is quite transparent at high bitrates. You need to do some listening tests, I suspect you'll be surprised. Or alternatively, take a look at some of the historical listening tests on this site.

Already have. Trained ears can distinguish the MP3 artifacts at even 320 kb/s due to serious design flaws, even if ours can't. Both will sound transparent at 192 kb/s to both of us and AAC will have better technical quality, retaining more inaudible, high-frequency parts so what's the point of using an outdated format if you're aiming for quality, pal?

QUOTE

Hmm, did you use any other non-standard settings? Where is that FLAC file you mentioned, I'm curious to try it myself.

Nope. I'll upload a FLAC later if anyone else requests.

QUOTE

Did you see my explanation above? You shouldn't assume that one codec will be better at all bitrates. AAC-He is a great example of a codec that does really good at low bitrates and not good at higher bitrates.

Except it does just fine and outperforms MP3 at any bitrate. For real dude, you aren't too bright for someone that's been here for a decade. I've learned everything I needed about AAC within a month when I decided to switch to it. This site's listening tests also prompted my move when it kept being rated #1 even if y'all now downsize its bitrate, fraudulently advertise it as higher and declare it to be lower quality than f*cking QUICKTIME.